MSC MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY S.A. & ANR. Vs. BRG IRON AND STEEL COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed by the defendant no. 1 in the suit for appointment of an independent valuer for carrying out a detailed valuation of the goods de-stuffed by the second defendant pursuant to orders passed by this Court. The first defendant has also prayed for injunction on the defendant no. 2 from taking any steps to sell the goods until the valuation is done by an independent valuer and for appointment of a Receiver to take possession of the goods which have been de-stuffed.

(2.) There are two plaintiffs in the suit. The first plaintiff provides marine containers in which the goods are stored and transported. The plaintiff no. 1 carries on its business in India through the plaintiff no. 2. The first plaintiff is the carrier of the goods contained in 256 containers from foreign ports for delivery to the defendant no. 1 at Haldia. The first defendant has been described as the consignee/notified party in the 15 bills of lading under which the goods were shifted to India. The defendant no. 2 is the Customs and the defendant no. 3 is a company who is in control of a container and freight where the goods are lying at present.

(3.) The suit was filed for a decree of Rs. 70,80,35,147/- along with detention charges for 256 containers, for sale of the goods stuffed in the containers and for restraining the first defendant from obstructing the de-stuffing of the goods. The goods in question are melting scraps. The containers were given on hire by the plaintiff for the purpose of carriage of the goods by sea and the plaintiff no. 1 claims to be the owner of the said containers. The goods were imported between February and June, 2012. The defendant no. 1, however, could not take delivery of the said goods due to which the containers were shifted from the port premises to the container freight station operated by the defendant no. 3. The case made out in the plaint is that the defendant no. 1 failed to de-stuff the cargo from the containers and return the empty containers to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs accordingly filed a suit for demurrage and detention charges as well as for damages for use of the containers by the defendant no. 1 beyond the time agreed to by the parties. The plaintiff claims a lien on the goods of the defendant no. 1 which have been stuffed in the containers and state that they have a right to sell and dispose of the said goods and apply the proceeds of such sale in reduction of sum due to the plaintiffs from the defendant no. 1. The plaintiff relies on clauses in the contract of carriage recorded in the bills of lading with regard to carrier's lien.